Response To https://twitter.com/jimmie_ard/status/745444764368023552

Re: Evil in unborn babies, I seem to recall suggestion that many behavioral tendencies seem genetically transferable.

I don't seem to recall specific mention of evil in animals, but two apparently contemporary concepts and one Bible verse seem to render that suggestion feasible. I seem to recall suggestion that increased aggressive human behavior seems associable with increased aggressive behavior in the interactive animal kingdom over time. In addition the animal kingdom seems considered largely carnivorous, but the Bible seems to suggest that all creatures were initially vegetarian. Perhaps the animal kingdom gradually developed aggressive behavior in reaction to experiences and other impact from aggressive human behavior.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745152850028703744

In light of the apparent limited and fallible nature of human perception via which emergence seems suggested to be identified, might "be recognized" be a more accurate description than "emerge"? In addition, from what, other than energy, might they "emerge" since the complexity to which the comment seems to credit such emergence seems to simply refer to concentrations of energy and cooperative combinations of concentrations of energy?

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752

https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752 The work of holding atoms together seems reasonably suggested to be common to both rocks and computers, but if everything is made of energy, then the atoms themselves seem to be concentrations of energy.

To me, the suggestion does not seem to be that energy is "traded in" by reality for a mass item with certain qualities once the energy reaches a certain concentration. The more self-consistent suggestion seems to be that the "mass item" is an abstraction of energy in concentrated and possibly cooperative mode, and that the mass item will eventually deconcentrate into that which is recognized as energy. But, to me, the mass item doesn't seem suggested to stopped being energy.

Apparently similarly, reality doesn't seem suggested to swap a human item for sufficient energy. Humans, therefore, seem suggested to simply be concentrated energy, and all human behavior is simply the behavior of concentrated, cooperative energy.

Of course, I could be wrong, and welcome substantiated suggestion to that effect.

Response To https://twitter.com/InfoIsGood/status/743403129539014656

To me, the comment seems to suggest a distinction between science's proposed convergence upon truth (the apparent narrowing of the scope of assertion) and religion's proposed divergence at truth (the apparent broadening of the scope of assertion). To me, this distinction seems to imply, but not necessarily indicate comparative quality of the two topics, but rather, a difference in their natures.

To me, science seems solely concerned with the subset of reality that (a) seems humanly observed and (b) seems to exhibit predictable patterns. I seem to recall suggestion by scientists that much exists within the remainder of reality that is not yet considered to be humanly and predictably observed.

To me, logically, science's apparent convergent nature potentially eliminating false assertion regarding humanly and predictably observed matters might yield less falsehood, but not necessarily more truth. If, for example, the truth of a hypothetical matter contains ten true concepts, and ten related concepts are perceived, but only four of those perceived ten are true, then six of the perceived concepts seem logically false. Even if all six false concepts are subsequently eliminated at some point, if the remaining undiscovered six true concepts exist outside of the scope of human, predictable observation, convergence seems achieved upon only partial relevant truth, the total truth seeming to remain out of science's reach, resulting in a possibly unrecognized false representation of reality.

Religion, defined as human understanding of the proposed God/human relationship, seems to include two factors that seem to place religion outside of the bounds of the apparent subset of reality apparently focused upon by science: (a) God, who does not seem humanly and predictably observed, and (b) relationship-related interaction, regarding which the number of relevant variables seems inconducive to predictable, human observation.

Relationship interaction assertion seems logically more likely to diverge at truth due to the apparently large number of potential values for the factors of (a) unique, human, relationship-relevant characteristics, and (b) circumstance. Apparently as a result, outcomes of a relationship interaction might vary among relationships and even among points in time within the same relationship, apparently due to changes in circumstance.

To me, the apparently divergent-at-truth nature of religion does not seem to warrant eliminating attempting to vet religious assertion. Perhaps to the contrary, to the extent that religion holds the key to optimal human experience that science can not produce, addressing religion seems a logically more pressing issue than addressing secular science.

To me, therefore, the line of qualitative distinction seems optimally drawn where either science or religion presents understanding that is false, incomplete, or not applicable within a particular context of focus, and does not seem optimally drawn categorically between religion and science. Each person seems personally responsible for drawing that person's line, whether by personally reviewing relevant information or by placing faith in another party and adopting that party's line of distinction.

The SIDP presents apparently overlooked information that seems relevant to the drawing of those lines, and apparently in turn, to the quality of individual and aggregate human experience that seems impacted by behavior undertaken based upon the drawing of those lines.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743106955695292416

Re: "The flood myth was written long before the buybull", to me, the comment "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans" does not seem intended as an assessment of the account's historicity, but seems likely intended as a criticism of God's considering genocide a good thing for humans. My response seems to (a) attempt to place that criticism in its apparent context of Genesis 6:5, (b) compare that criticism to the apparent contradictory criticism of the extent to which God seems reasonably suggested to have left human evildoing and its resulting human suffering unchecked, and (c) pose the question of which criticism seems false. If the apparent response "The whole lot is false" is intended to suggest that both criticisms of God are false, I seem to agree, regardless of whether or not the flood account is historic.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256

https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256 I seem to attempt to phrase assertion conservatively to imply subjectivity to error as opposed to assumed irrefutable fact.

Re: "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans", if this comment refers to Genesis 6's apparent flood account, I respectfully propose consideration of (a) the context apparently apparently described by Genesis 6:5, and (b) the apparent criticism of God's apparently-suggested "human experience management" for allowing "evildoing" and the suffering that results to go unchecked. Which of these apparent contradictory criticisms of God might you consider to be false?

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/743073020042960896

To me, I seem to have stated my goal at the onset. To me, you seemed to have stated that the human experience has no intended purpose, and I seem to have responded that continuing along the proposed reasoning path might lead to a different conclusion (https://twitter.com/pbSIDP/status/742775991005794306). Since that point, my posts seem intended to review the apparently relevant factors to attempt to determine what, if any, conclusion they lead to. To me, so far, we seem to have progressed through several concepts to the issue of whether pain and pleasure have, from birth, the specific, primary, and humanly intrinsic role of incentivizing and dis-incentivizing specific behavior. To me, that seems the current state of the discussion.